The Vatican has put a modern twist on the seven deadly sins, announcing a list of "social sins" -- including pollution and genetic manipulation. (And just when we had successfully rid ourselves of lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy, and pride.) The nature of sin itself has changed, says Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Vatican body in charge of matters of conscience: "While sin used to concern mostly the individual, today it has mainly a social resonance, due to the phenomenon of globalization."
source: Canadian Press, BBC News, Associated Press, The Age
see also, in Grist:Pope lauds Montreal Protocol, Vatican aims for carbon neutrality
see also, in Grist:15 Green Religious Leaders
see also, in Grist:A special series on God & the Environment
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Green Granny Posted 8:42 am
10 Mar 2008
Permalink
Matt Posted 9:53 pm
10 Mar 2008
This seems to imply that the Church is not only recognizing the physical links (and therefore obligations) between man and the world, but that there is a spiritual one as well. This is a dramatic shift away from previous doctrines and philosophies that assumed the world was put here for dominion by mankind.
To imply a moral and ethical obligation towards the earth is something I perceive people have been trying to formulate for quite some time, but have been hampered by the lack of backing by "authorities" and so their efforts have been largely marginalized. Hopefully, between this announcement and the one yesterday from the Southern Baptists people will see that the "authority" for such arguments exists and we can stop performing mental gymastics trying to put a dollar value on things we would like to preserve or conserve.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:28 pm
10 Mar 2008
Of course, it is erroneous to say that there are "new" sins. There are just expressions of classic, good ol' fashion sinfulness more typical of our age, which are just now being recognized.
Notice that the opposition to abortion and to embryonic research is still in place. Also, although social justice and the environment have received some welcome attention, there seems to be nothing about dropping opposition to homosexuality as a valid form of affection and love, nor about decrying exploitation of animals and encouraging animal welfare.
Oh well. Step by step.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:51 am
11 Mar 2008
Permalink
anthony11 Posted 5:17 am
11 Mar 2008
Yep, people have been burning wood and practicing selective breeding for millennia. We didn't have 6+ BILLION of them doing it a thousand years ago, though, and farmers improving the characteristics of maize weren't splicing frog genes into it.
I absolutely agree with caniscandida that animal rights / welfare are entirely in line with core Christian values -- eg., the sermon on the mount, and it's sad that more people don't see that. I love what the CVA folks are doing along those lines, though.
I do wish the RC church would drop the homosexuality thing, as there isn't a rationale that it hurts someone.
Elective abortion, though, I don't jump on the bandwagon for. The solution for an unwanted pregnancy is not to kill the weaker contestant, but rather to lose the elitism and NOT GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE. It's not that difficult. The cause of pregnancy is well-documented, as are the trivial means to avoid it.
Permalink
katmainomad Posted 5:22 am
11 Mar 2008
I'm not arguing the point about whether or not we should look to religion, just assuming that there are still those that do.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:50 am
11 Mar 2008
I will continue to point out the ridiculousness of religion at every opportunity, and you are free to continue to defend an institution that does more to protect child molesters than the sanctity of life.
Permalink
Matt Posted 10:01 pm
11 Mar 2008
In point of fact, the constitution does NOT "guarantee the separation of church and state." Instead, the only things in there about religion at all are a prohibition against a national religion and a prohibition on religious tests for office.The phrase quoted above has mysteriously appeared at some point in history (Sometimes attributed to Jefferson) and repeated so many times that it's accepted as truth. Perhaps there is no functional difference between the two phrases, but like I said, there is such a thing as accuracy.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:20 am
12 Mar 2008
However, I agree with the common-sense position that Jason refers to, that this republic is indeed founded on a plainly established "separation of church and state," wherever that phrase comes from.
I most certainly do NOT agree with Jason that religion per se is "ridiculous." Of course, ignorant or wicked religious leaders have taught many stupidities, and inspired many sins. But the record of religion in such matters hardly disturbs the place of Religion, truly understood, as one of the four great paths to truth, along with Art, Philosophy and Science, that all human beings at one time or another have made their own.
Nor do I think that in this instance the Catholic Church is "preaching morals" to non-Catholics. For that matter, even within the Church, this business about the Sacrament of Penance, or Reconciliation, is not a top-down decree; it is more a subtle suggestion for confessors, which they are by no means commanded to heed -- and I expect very many of them will not.
Nor do I think it is at all fair to suggest that anthing that any Catholic says or has ever said is vitiated by the hierarchy's disgraceful conduct in defending priestly abusers of children. The fiercest critics and prosecutors of those hierarchs have been Catholics, courageously fighting in defense of perfectly Catholic values.
Permalink